An Empirical Comparison of Rank-Based Surrogate Weights in Additive Multiattribute Decision Analysis

References

• Ahn BS (2011) Compatible weighting method with rank order centroid: Maximum entropy ordered weighted average approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 212(3):552–559.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ahn BS, Choi SH (2012) Aggregation of ordinal data using ordered weighted averaging operator weights. Ann. Oper. Res. 201:1–16.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ahn BS, Park KS (2008) Comparing methods for multiattribute decision making with ordinal weights. Comput. Oper. Res. 35(5):1660–1670.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alfares HK, Duffuaa SO (2009) Assigning cardinal weights in multi-criteria decision making based on ordinal ranking. J. Multi-Criteria Decision Anal. 15(5–6):125–133.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson RM, Hobbs BF (2002) Using a Bayesian approach to quantify scale compatibility bias. Management Sci. 48(12):1555–1568.Link, Google Scholar
• Baker SF, Green SG, Lowe JK, Francis VE (2000) A value-focused approach for laboratory equipment purchases. Military Oper. Res. 5(4):43–56.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barron FH (1992) Selecting a best multiattribute alternative with partial information about attribute weights. Acta Psychologica 80(1–3):91–103.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barron FH, Barrett BE (1996a) Decision quality using ranked attribute weights. Management Sci. 42(11):1515–1523.Link, Google Scholar
• Barron FH, Barrett BE (1996b) The efficacy of SMARTER—Simple multi-attribute rating technique extended to ranking. Acta Psychologica 93(1–3):23–36.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bassham B, Bauer KW, Miller JO (2006) Automatic target recognition system evaluation using decision analysis techniques. Military Oper. Res. 11(1):49–66.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boetsch T, Bieger T, Wittmer A (2011) A customer-value framework for analyzing airline services. Transportation J. 50(3):251–270.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Borcherding K, Eppel T, von Winterfeldt D (1991) Comparison of weighting judgements in multiattribute utility measurement. Management Sci. 37(12):1603–1619.Link, Google Scholar
• Borsuk ME, Mavrommati G, Samal NR, Zuidema S, Wollheim W, Rogers SH, Thorn AM, et al. (2019) Deliberative multiattribute valuation of ecosystem services across a range of regional land-use, socioeconomic, and climate scenarios for the upper Merrimack River watershed, New Hampshire, USA. Ecology Soc. 24(2):11.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bottomley PA, Doyle JR (2001) A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: Good, better, best. Omega 29(6):553–560.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bresnick TA, Buede DM, Pisani AA, Smith LL, Wood BB (1997) Airborne and space-borne reconnaissance force mixes: A decision analysis approach. Military Oper. Res. 3(4):65–78.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Broughton EK, Brent AC, Haywood L (2012) Application of a multi-criteria analysis approach for decision-making in the energy sector: The case of concentrating solar power in South Africa. Energy Environ. 23(8):1221–1231.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Buchholz T, Rametsteiner E, Volk TA, Luzadis VA (2009) Multi-criteria analysis for bioenergy systems assessments. Energy Policy 37(2):484–495.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Butler JC, Chebeskov AN, Dyer JS, Edmunds TA, Jia J, Oussanov VI (2005) The United States and Russia evaluate plutonium disposition options with multiattribute utility theory. Interfaces 35(1):88–101.Link, Google Scholar
• Chenayah S, Periathamby A, Takeda E (2007) MCDA in analyzing the recycling strategies in Malaysia. Waldmann KH, Stocker UM, eds. Oper. Res. Proc. 2006 (Springer, Heidelberg), 417–422.Google Scholar
• Colombi JM, Robbins MJ, Burger JA, Weber YS (2015) Interface evaluation for open system architectures using multiobjective decision analysis. Military Oper. Res. 20(2):55–69.Google Scholar
• Crain WF (2003) Multiattribute weight determination: Elicitation and approximation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.Google Scholar
• Crispim JA, de Sousa JP (2009) Partner selection in virtual enterprises: A multi-criteria decision support approach. Internat. J. Production Res. 47(17):4791–4812.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cruciani C, Giove S, Pinar M, Sostero M (2013) Constructing the FEEM sustainability index: A Choquet-integral application. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Milan, Italy.Google Scholar
• Danielson M, Ekenberg L (2014) Rank ordering methods for multi-criteria decisions. Zaraté P, Kersten GE, Hernández JE, eds. Group Decision and Negotiation: A Process-Oriented View (Springer, Heidelberg), 128–135.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Danielson M, Ekenberg L, He Y (2014) Augmenting ordinal methods of attribute weight approximation. Decision Anal. 11(1):21–26.Link, Google Scholar
• Dawes RM (1979) The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making. Amer. Psych. 34(7):571–582.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dawes RM, Corrigan B (1974) Linear models in decision making. Psych. Bull. 81(2):95–106.Crossref, Google Scholar
• de Almeida Filho AT, Clemente TRN, Morais DC, de Almeida AT(2018) Preference modeling experiments with surrogate weighting procedures for the PROMETHEE method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 264(2):453–461.Crossref, Google Scholar
• de Azevedo RC, de Oliveira Lacerda RT, Ensslin L, Jungles AE, Ensslin SR (2013) Performance measurement to aid decision making in the budgeting process for apartment-building construction: Case study using MCDA-C. J. Construction Engrg. Management 139(2):225–237.Crossref, Google Scholar
• de Bruin K, Dellink RB, Ruijs A, Bolwidt L, van Buuren A, Graveland J, de Groot RS, et al. (2009) Adapting to climate change in The Netherlands: An inventory of climate adaption options and ranking of alternatives. Climatic Change 95:23–45.Crossref, Google Scholar
• de Glanville WA, Vial L, Costard S, Wieland B, Pfeiffer DU (2014) Spatial multi-criteria decision analysis to predict suitability for African swine fever endemicity in Africa. BMC Veterinary Res. 10(9):1–14.Google Scholar
• Doyle JR, Green RH, Bottomley PA (1997) Judging relative importance: Direct rating and point allocation are not equivalent. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 70(1):65–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dyer JS, Lund RN, Larsen JB, Kumar V, Leone RP (1990) A decision support system for prioritizing oil and gas exploration activities. Oper. Res. 38(3):386–396.Link, Google Scholar
• Edwards W (1977) How to use multiattribute utility measurement for social decisionmaking. IEEE Trans. Systems Man Cybernetics 7(5):326–338.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Edwards W, Barron FH (1994) SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 60(3):306–325.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ferreira F, Santos S, Rodrigues P (2011) Adding value to bank branch performance evaluation using cognitive maps and MCDA: A case study. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 62(7):1320–1333.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Filipe MN, Ferreira FA, Santos SP (2015) A multiple criteria information system for pedagogical evaluation and professional development of teachers. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 66(11):1769–1782.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Geis JP, Parnell GS, Newton H, Bresnick T (2011) Blue Horizons study assesses future capabilities and technologies for the United States Air Force. Interfaces 41(4):338–353.Link, Google Scholar
• Gomes LFAM, Machado MAS, Rangel LAD (2013) Behavioral multi-criteria decision analysis: The TODIM method with criteria interactions. Ann. Oper. Res. 211:531–548.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greco S, Ehrgott M, Figueroa JR (2016) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys (Springer, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gumus S, Egilmez G, Kucukvar M, Park YS (2016) Integrating expert weighting and multi-criteria decision making into eco-efficiency analysis: The case of US manufacturing. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 67(4):616–628.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gutiérrez-Nieto B, Serrano-Cinca C, Camón-Cala J (2016) A credit score system for socially responsible lending. J. Bus. Ethics 133(4):691–701.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison H, Doyle A (1984) The electronic digital computer and Melopsittacus undulatus. Interfaces 14(4):16–23.Link, Google Scholar
• Hassan OAB (2003) A value-focused thinking approach for the environmental management of buildings. J. Environ. Assessment Policy Management 5(2):247–261.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hays WL (1973) Statistics for the Social Sciences, 2nd ed. (Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, New York).Google Scholar
• Holst L (1980) On the lengths of the pieces of a stick broken at random. J. Appl. Probab. 17(3):623–634.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoskins BL, Mascherini M (2009) Measuring active citizenship through the development of a composite indicator. Soc. Indicators Res. 90(3):459–488.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jackson JA, Parnell GS, Jones BL, Lehmkuhl LJ, Conley HW, Andrew JM (1997) Air Force 2025 operational analysis. Military Oper. Res. 3(4):5–21.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jia J, Fischer GW, Dyer JS (1998) Attribute weighting methods and decision quality in the presence of response error: A simulation study. J. Behav. Decision Making 11(2):85–105.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL (1980) Siting Energy Facilities (Academic Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL, McDaniels TL (1992) Value-focused thinking about strategic decisions at BC Hydro. Interfaces 22(6):94–109.Link, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs (John Wiley & Sons, New York).Google Scholar
• Keeney RL, Sicherman A (1983) Illustrative comparison of one utility’s coal and nuclear choices. Oper. Res. 31(1):50–83.Link, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL, Lathrop JF, Sicherman A (1986) An analysis of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company’s technology choice. Oper. Res. 34(1):18–39.Link, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL, See KE, von Winterfeldt D (2006) Evaluating academic programs: With applications to U.S. graduate decision science programs. Oper. Res. 54(5):813–828.Link, Google Scholar
• Kirkwood CW, Corner JL (1993) The effectiveness of partial information about attribute weights for ranking alternatives in multiattribute decision making. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 54(3):456–476.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kirkwood CW, Sarin RK (1985) Ranking with partial information: A method and an application. Oper. Res. 33(1):38–48.Link, Google Scholar
• Klimack W, Kloeber J (2006) Multiobjective value analysis of Army basic training. Decision Anal. 3(1):50–58.Link, Google Scholar
• Linkov I, Rosoff H, Valverde LJ, Bates ME, Trump B, Friedman D, Evans J, Keisler J (2012) Civilian response corps force review: The application of multi-criteria decision analysis to prioritize skills required for future diplomatic missions. J. Multi-Criteria Decision Anal. 19(3-4):155–168.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Longaray AA, Ensslin L (2014) Uso da MCDA na indentificacao e mensuracao da performance dos criterios para a certificacao dos hospitais de insimo no ambito do SUS. Production 24(1):41–56.Crossref, Google Scholar
• López-Baldovin MJ, Gutiérrez-Martin C, Berbel J (2006) Multicriteria and multiperiod programming for scenario analysis in Guadalquivir River irrigated farming. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 57(5):499–509.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lootsma FA (1999) Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis via Ratio and Difference Judgement (Kluwer, Boston).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lootsma FA, Bots PWG (1999) The assignment of scores for output-based research funding. J. Multi-Criteria Decision Anal. 8:44–50.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Makridou G, Andriosopoulos K, Doumpos M, Zopounidis C (2015) A two-stage approach for energy efficiency analysis in European Union countries. Energy J. 36(2):47–69.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Martz M, Neu WL (2009) Multi-objective optimization of an autonomous underwater vehicle. Marine Tech. Soc. J. 43(2):48–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mateos A, Rios-Insua S, Gallego E (2001) Postoptimal analysis in a multi-attribute decision model for restoring contaminated aquatic ecosystems. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 52(7):727–738.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mavrommati G, Borsuk ME, Howarth RB (2017) A novel deliberative multicriteria evaluation approach to ecosystem service valuation. Ecology Soc. 22(2):39.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McGlynn G, Butler G, Pearman A (2015) Stakeholder preference mapping—Seeking a way forward for the processing of spent nuclear fuel. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 66(2):219–230.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Merrick JRW, Parnell GS, Barnett J, Garcia M (2005) A multiple-objective decision analysis of stakeholder value to identify watershed improvement needs. Decision Anal. 2(1):44–57.Link, Google Scholar
• Moshkovich HM, Schellenberger RE, Olson DL (1998) Data influences the result more than preferences: Some lessons from implementation of multiattribute techniques in a real decision task. Decision Support Systems 22(1):73–84.Crossref, Google Scholar
• O’Brien D, Brugha C (2010) Adapting and refining in multi-criteria decision-making. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 61(5):756–767.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Parnell GS, Driscoll PJ, Henderson DL (2010) Decision Making in Systems Engineering and Management (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Parthiban P, Zubar HA, Kataker P (2013) Vendor selection problem: A multi-criteria approach based on strategic decisions. Internat. J. Production Res. 51(5):1535–1548.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Peano C, Migliorini P, Sottile F (2014) A methodology for the sustainability assessment of agri-food systems: An application to the Slow Food Presidia project. Ecology Soc. 19(4):24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Porthin M, Rosqvist T, Perrels A, Molarius R (2013) Multi-criteria decision analysis in adaptation decision-making: A flood case study in Finland. Regional Environ. Change 13:1171–1180.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Punkka A, Salo A (2014) Scale dependence and ranking intervals in additive value models under incomplete preference information. Decision Anal. 11(2):83–104.Link, Google Scholar
• Qiu Z (2005) Using multi-criteria decision models to assess the economic and environmental impacts of farming decisions in an agricultural watershed. Rev. Agricultural Econom. 27(2):229–244.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ram C, Montibeller G, Morton A (2011) Extending the use of scenario planning and MCDA for the evaluation of strategic options. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 62(5):817–829.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Regos G (2012) Comparison of power plants’ risks with multi-criteria decision models. Central Eur. J. Oper. Res. 21:845–865.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roberts R, Goodwin P (2002) Weight approximations in multi-attribute decision models. J. Multi-Criteria Decision Anal. 11(6):291–303.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Royuela V, Romaní J, Artís M (2009) Using quality of life criteria to define urban areas in Catalonia. Soc. Indicators Res. 90(3):419–440.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Saaty TL (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process (McGraw-Hill, New York).Google Scholar
• Sarabando P, Dias LC (2010) Simple procedures of choice in multicriteria problems without precise information about the alternatives’ values. Comput. Oper. Res. 37(12):2239–2247.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Silvestri A, De Felice F, Petrillo A (2012) Multi-criteria risk analysis to improve safety in manufacturing systems. Internat. J. Production Res. 50(17):4806–4821.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simon J, Regnier E, Whitney L (2014) A value-focused approach to energy transformation in the United States Department of Defense. Decision Anal. 11(2):117–132.Link, Google Scholar
• Srivastava J, Connolly T, Beach LR (1995) Do ranks suffice? A comparison of alternative weighting approaches in value elicitation. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 63(1):112–116.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stich B, Holland JH, Noberga RAA, O’Hara CG (2011) Using multi-criteria decision making to highlight stakeholders’ values in the corridor planning process. J. Transport Land Use 4(3):105–118.Google Scholar
• Stillwell WG, Seaver DA, Edwards W (1981) A comparison of weight approximation techniques in multiattribute utility decision making. Organ. Behav. Human Performance 28(1):62–77.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tavana T (2003) CROSS: A multicriteria group-decision-making model for evaluating and prioritizing advanced-technology projects at NASA. Interfaces 33(3):40–56.Link, Google Scholar
• Ulvila JW, Snider WD (1980) Negotiation of international oil tanker standards: An application of multiattribute value theory. Oper. Res. 28(1):81–96.Link, Google Scholar
• von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W (1986) Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Voulgaris F, Doumpos M, Zopounidis C (2000) On the evaluation of Greek industrial SMEs’ performance via multicriteria analysis of financial ratios. Small Bus. Econom. 15(2):127–136.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vulevic T, Dragovic N, Kostadinov S, Simic SB, Milovanovic I (2015) Prioritization of soil erosion vulnerable areas using multi-criteria analysis methods. Polish J. Environ. Stud. 24(1):317–323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang J, Zionts S (2015) Using ordinal data to estimate cardinal values. J. Multi-Criteria Decision Anal. 22(3–4):185–196.Crossref, Google Scholar